Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7295, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
14:55
I begin by thanking Karen Whitefield and the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee for their careful and informed scrutiny of the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill and for preparing the stage 1 report on the bill. I also thank all the individuals and organisations who commented on the draft bill, which was subject to public consultation in 2009, and those who contributed to the wider stakeholder engagement process that has played a key role in helping to develop and refine the bill’s provisions.
Before I move on to discuss the bill and the key issues that are raised in the committee’s report, I would like to say a few words about the importance of Scotland’s historic environment. The role that the historic environment plays in providing the people of Scotland with a sense of place has been brought home to me in rather stark fashion in recent weeks with the damage, through fire, of the Star and Garter hotel in my home town of Linlithgow. The hotel, which is a B-listed Georgian building, has adorned the east end of the town since the middle of the 18th century and has been an iconic building in Linlithgow’s townscape. The reaction to the fire has demonstrated the prominent role that that listed building has played in helping to define the physical character of Linlithgow High Street, and the obvious connection that it has with the sense of place that is felt by the people who live there.
The importance of the historic environment is not limited to a sense of place. It also makes a significant contribution to the economy, for example through tourism and the support of indigenous craft skills. It is intrinsic to our strong sense of cultural identity, it provides the people of Scotland with a rich environment in which to live and work, and it is inspiring and has a significant role to play in developing a sustainable economic future for Scotland.
In introducing the bill, the Scottish Government’s aims have been threefold: to improve the management and protection of our unique historic environment by addressing the specific gaps and weaknesses in the current legislative framework that were identified during a year-long stakeholder engagement process in 2007; to avoid placing significant burdens or duties on central or local government, owners of assets, business or members of the public; and, in a challenging economic climate, to keep the implementation cost low.
One of the bill’s underlying objectives is to harmonise aspects of historic environment legislation with the planning regime when it is practicable to do so, which has been particularly welcomed by stakeholders. However, the bill should also be seen to complement the work that is already being done by Historic Scotland in partnership with local authorities to streamline and simplify our system of heritage protection. Examples of that are the establishment of joint working agreements between local government and Historic Scotland, and the managed removal of a duty on local authorities to notify the Scottish ministers of certain casework.
The bill will contribute to the Scottish Government’s purpose by enhancing the ability of the Scottish ministers and planning authorities to manage in a sustainable way Scotland’s unique historic environment. The bill will support the Scottish Government’s greener strategic objective, and will contribute directly to the meeting of national outcome 12 by providing a much-improved legislative toolkit to help to protect and enhance our built environment for future generations.
The committee considered the evidence that was submitted to it very carefully and produced a thorough and thoughtful report. I will touch on some of the key issues that are discussed in that report.
The bill will enhance the ability of the Government to work with developers and owners by enabling the Scottish ministers to set out in a grant award letter the terms of recovery in the event of a disposal or a breach of a condition of grant. I am pleased to note that the committee concluded that that proposal is sensible and will provide a higher level of certainty to grant recipients.
The proposal in the bill to modify the current defence of ignorance in relation to unauthorised works affecting scheduled monuments will modernise an archaic piece of law and bring the framing of such offences closer to that of other environmental offences.
The committee stressed the importance of the availability of, and access to, information on scheduled monuments for the owners of such sites, and it has asked for an example of the information that we propose to send to all owners, if the bill is enacted. I confirm that a draft information pack will be with the committee in advance of its stage 2 consideration.
The bill will introduce a system of enforcement notices for scheduled monuments that will harmonise the arrangements for scheduled monuments with those for listed buildings. The bill also includes provisions that will provide for a system of stop notices and temporary stop notices for listed buildings and scheduled monuments that will strengthen protection for designated historic assets and bring it into line with the planning system. I am pleased to note the broad support for those provisions.
The bill will create a duty for the Scottish ministers to compile and maintain two new statutory inventories: an inventory of gardens and designed landscapes, and an inventory of battlefields. The inventories will enable nationally important sites to be identified and recorded on a statutory basis, and they will allow planning authorities to pick up on changes to the inventories immediately. It is important that those provisions will impose no new additional duties or burdens on owners.
The bill will extend the range of historic environment assets that can be scheduled under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. That provision will allow the Scottish ministers to designate and protect a small number of nationally important sites that are currently afforded no protection, such as, for example, scatters of flint tools that mark sites of early human occupation. Such sites are important but rare; the total number of sites that are likely to be scheduled is around 10.
The bill will introduce a new power that will enable the Scottish ministers to offer any person a certificate that will guarantee that a building will not be listed during the five years from the date of the certificate. The main policy aim of that is to provide certainty for owners and developers who are considering works. It will allow projects to be started with confidence, because crucial decisions about listing have been made at an early stage in the process. The policy is not, as a matter of principle, to exempt buildings from listing, because the listing of a building would be a perfectly proper outcome of the process of considering a building for a certificate of immunity. That should address some of the concerns that have been raised by the Law Society for Scotland. I am pleased to note that the committee supports that proposal.
I am also pleased to note that the committee recognises that our proposals to extend to successor owners the liability for any expenses for urgent works that are carried out by the regulatory authorities will address the situation in which an owner transfers ownership in order to avoid payment.
I want to address some of the points that were made in written evidence from the Built Environment Forum Scotland, which called for the bill to do two things. First, it wants the bill to give all public bodies a responsibility to protect, enhance and have special regard to Scotland’s historic environment in exercising their duties. Secondly, it wants the bill to ensure that local authorities have access, and give special regard, to appropriate information and expert advice on the local historic environment.
The Scottish Government’s view is that the bill, which is cost neutral, is not the vehicle for such provisions, because both proposals could have significant cost implications. The first duty that is sought by the BEFS would apply to all public bodies, no matter how remote their connection to the historic environment. It would impose a proactive duty to protect and enhance the historic environment, which goes much further than simply having to have regard to, or—to use BEFS’s words—“to take cognisance of” it. Such a duty would require additional resources to ensure compliance. Indeed, the duty would be so open-ended that it is difficult to see a point at which a public body could safely stop spending money without fear of non-compliance.
The second proposal is simply not developed enough to be costed accurately. Any legislative duty would give local authorities no alternative but to spend the money that is necessary to bring the current information and expertise up to the standard that would be required by such a duty. However, I acknowledge that information and expertise are important and, to that end, a working group has been set up to examine the issues that are involved and to identify a range of options for improving on the current situation that will take realistic account of the current economic climate.
I am pleased that the minister has raised both those points, and I will talk about them later, if I can. On the first point, does she recognise that the Built Environment Forum Scotland is not asking for any new duties? It is simply asking for a restatement of existing duties and for greater emphasis to be put on them; that is, for the duties to be prioritised. It would not be a new burden on local authorities at all.
That is not how we interpret the proposal, and it is certainly not how local authorities and others have interpreted it. The proposal seems to be for a proactive duty that does not currently exist, although I look forward to hearing Ken Macintosh’s contribution on that point.
Our view is that there should be no new statutory controls and duties when better and more proportionate means to bring about improvements to the heritage framework are available. The Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is a tightly focused technical amending bill that has been drafted with the intention of avoiding placing significant new burdens or duties on public bodies or individuals, and implementation costs are expected to be low. The bill addresses the specific gaps and weaknesses in the current heritage legislation framework that were identified during extensive discussions with stakeholders, and its provisions will make a good system better and improve the ability of the regulatory authorities to work with partners to manage Scotland’s unique historic legacy.
I look forward to hearing members’ contributions on this important issue. No doubt we will also get a sense of the importance of Scotland’s historic environment from members’ reflections from their constituencies of how such issues have had an effect and may have an effect in the future.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
I call Karen Whitefield to speak on behalf of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee.
15:07
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee in support of the general principles of the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
Scotland has a long, proud and rich cultural history that plays a significant part in the story of the development of the modern world. The preservation of history, whether it is in the form of land, buildings or artefacts, is crucial to Scotland for many reasons. First, and most basic, is the intrinsic historical value of relics. Their existence allows us to enhance our understanding of history, who we are and where we came from. Secondly, many of the buildings and artefacts have great aesthetic value; they are beautiful and deserve to be protected. Thirdly, and not insignificantly, Scotland’s cultural heritage plays a vital part in our tourism industry, so it makes perfect sense for us to protect and invest in that heritage. It is for those reasons that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee agrees with the Scottish Government that the bill is necessary.
As members will be aware, the bill is an amending bill that addresses issues that have been highlighted by local and central Government, and follows extensive consultation of Historic Scotland. The key aim of the bill is to harmonise the legislation that covers the environment, scheduled monuments, listed buildings and the marine environment. The bill will amend three existing acts: the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, to allow ministers to specify the amount of grant that can be recovered if conditions of grant are breached or a building is sold within 10 years; the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, to amend certain provisions relating to scheduled monuments; and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, to amend provisions on listed buildings.
In total, the committee received 21 submissions as well as two letters from the minister. As might have been expected, there was a clear split in the reaction to the bill between those who use the historic environment and those who primarily seek to conserve and protect it.
Those who use the historic environment were most concerned about amending provisions placing more restrictions and obligations on owners, while those who primarily seek to conserve and to protect were concerned that the bill had missed an opportunity to address broader matters. I will come to those details later. However, on the general point, it is fair to say that members of the committee recognised that, on occasion, there can be a conflict between the interests of those who own and run historic monuments and those who use them. It is also true to say that those interests are often in agreement rather than in conflict.
I come to the specific provisions of the bill. The bill seeks to revise the defence of ignorance for those who are found to have carried out unauthorised works on scheduled monuments. The clear view of the Scottish Government and Historic Scotland is that those who ought to know that a site is a scheduled monument should not be able to use ignorance as a defence. There was a feeling that that defence could be used as an excuse for unsuitable developments.
However, other organisations, such as the National Trust for Scotland and Heads of Planning Scotland, pointed out that there is often a real lack of up-to-date information about the location and status of scheduled monuments. The committee had some sympathy with that point and agreed that, if the provision is implemented, there is a need for improved information systems relating to scheduled monuments. That is why I welcome the minister’s point about information packs being provided to the committee in draft form in advance of stage 2. In response to those concerns, Historic Scotland has confirmed that it intends to list the information and make it more accessible. The organisation has undertaken to write to all owners to outline their responsibilities.
The bill will extend the provision of notices that can enforce action where unauthorised works have been carried out. That will strengthen the options that are available to Historic Scotland in such instances. Those provisions were generally supported, although the Law Society of Scotland raised some concerns about appeals and about the scope of the definition of works executed in, on or under a scheduled monument.
The bill will place the existing inventory of gardens and designed landscapes in legislation and create an inventory of battlefields. Owners and occupiers of those sites expressed concern that inclusion in an inventory would place obligations on land and restrict use. They were also worried that that part of the bill could oblige owners to maintain a site in a particular state. The Historic Houses Association Scotland put that concern rather nicely when it stated:
“We do not want to get to the stage that we have to apply to change the azalea bulbs.”—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 15 September 2010; c 3827.]
I am sure that we would all agree with that. Perhaps it is a matter for an azalea and related species bill that the Government might consider in the future. However, the bill probably gets the balance right. I am pleased that the minister has provided assurances that those concerns were unfounded and that inclusion on the inventories would be relevant only if any planning applications relating to the site were submitted.
Also included in the bill are provisions to extend the definition of monument to include
“any site ... comprising any thing, or group of things, that evidences previous human activity”.
That would cover sites that do not include something that can be defined as a structure or work, such as artefact scatters or archaeological deposits. Some concerns were raised about the form of wording used and that the definition might include too many sites and infringe on existing land use. However, in a letter to the committee, the minister provided strong assurances that
“only sites which are of ‘national importance’ may be scheduled”.
Most people would welcome that confirmation.
The bill proposes a system of certificates to guarantee that a building will not be listed within the next five years—certificates of immunity to list. Those are designed to encourage building development by removing the possibility that the relevant building will be listed during the development process. That proposal attracted the most comment in evidence, especially the provision that anyone can apply for a certificate. Concerns were raised that the process would be used to delay a building development without the owner’s knowledge. The committee noted that it is already open to anyone to suggest that a building can be listed, which can have the same effect as delaying a building development. We therefore concluded that there are no grounds for that concern. We also took the view that some developers might not want to buy a building without such a certificate, and that limiting applications to owners might have the effect of discouraging some building developments.
Although the provisions are not exhaustive, the bill also contains provisions to make it easier for local authorities to recover expenditure on urgent works to listed buildings that are in private hands. That is a technical provision, which basically registers the debt to the property rather than to the owner. There have been instances of owners passing ownership through a series of companies to avoid being liable for such debt. Serious concerns were expressed in relation to the provision. In particular, concerns were raised about the implications of someone buying a property on which such works had previously been carried out, and then inheriting that debt. The Scottish Government made it clear that any debt of that nature would become clear during the normal conveyancing process and would be dealt with in the same way as any other expenses for repairs. That clarification was welcomed by the committee.
Before concluding, I want to thank everyone who gave evidence during stage 1. Their evidence has helped to tighten and focus what was already a fairly well-received bill. I am sure that that was a relief to the minister, who has not always had that kind of experience at the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. There was consensus on the matter in the committee.
I would also like to thank the committee clerks for the hard work they have put into preparing the stage 1 report and organising our evidence-taking sessions.
I believe that the bill will significantly improve the protection and development of our cultural and historic environment. I am sure that, as was the case in committee, we can all agree today to support the general principles of the bill.
I look forward to the minister responding to some of the relatively minor concerns that were raised during stage 1.
15:17
This is a technical bill, but it is also an important and necessary one. The committee has prepared a thorough report, and I congratulate it on that. As Labour’s spokesperson on culture, it falls to me to contribute to this stage 1 debate. However, I am also the member for the Glasgow Kelvin constituency and, like many members, I have a strong interest in this debate.
No period of Scotland’s past or part of its land is any more or less likely to produce a protected site than another. My constituency has its fair share of historic buildings, such as Garnethill synagogue. It was Scotland’s first purpose-built synagogue and has high-quality stained glass. There are also the Glasgow film theatre, the Grand Central hotel and the King’s theatre. I am sure that each of our constituencies contains similar examples of monuments and architecture that are of historical interest. I should say that I think that Glasgow Kelvin is a little short on battlefields, as far as I know; although there are probably a few battles to come there, their sites will probably not be of the sort that are eligible to be registered.
We can all cite examples of why a duty falls on the state to protect and preserve important historical sites and to ensure that the public have access to them. That is done across the country because we believe that future generations should be able to benefit from the sites. It is our duty to ensure that that happens. That is why I believe that it is important to modernise our legislation, as we are doing.
The bill’s policy memorandum talks about our historic environment being “inspiring and irreplaceable”. That latter word is important because it must be emphasised by legislators that, if we do not protect our historic buildings and sites, we will not be able to replace them.
I care a lot about the Egyptian halls in Union Street, which is a stunning piece of Victorian architecture. Although the work of Alexander “Greek” Thomson, the chief architect to the second city of the empire, is writ large in Glasgow, the attempt to save that great building is in its last throes. I have exchanged correspondence with the minister on the campaign, and we agree that the building must be saved because it is important to Glasgow’s heritage. I pay tribute to Derek Souter and Historic Scotland, on behalf of the Government and Glasgow City Council, for the work that they are doing.
The bill will introduce new provisions, remove barriers to the use of existing powers and assist regulatory and planning authorities to manage the historic environment. As Karen Whitefield said, the bill will amend three existing pieces of legislation: the 1953 act, the 1979 act and the 1997 act. It is intended to harmonise historic environment legislation with environmental protection duties while—crucially—avoiding new financial and regulatory burdens.
I welcome that principle, although careful consideration will be needed as the bill passes through its various stages to ensure that that remains the case. We all know that we face difficult times, and we must get the balance right to ensure that we protect our history in the financial period ahead, which will not necessarily be the best time to make such a case.
Ignorance will no longer be a defence in relation to the protection of a monument, so accurate and up-to-date information is critical. It is about time that that defence was brought into law and its use restricted.
Section 1 of the bill deals with the expansion of ministers’ powers to be more specific on how a grant will be recovered in the event of the sale of the building that it has funded. That seems to be a sensible way to allow flexibility for ministers, which is critical. I have had some experience in my constituency in relation to Crown Terrace, on which the legislation was quite restrictive.
Section 3 deals with the modification of defences in relation to unauthorised work. It is important, as the Government has stated, that all owners of scheduled monuments be aware of their duties, and the Government has committed to bringing that about. Section 6 gives ministers new powers to serve enforcement notices, including stop and temporary stop notices, which are necessary to protect our historic environment.
With regard to section 14, the definition of a monument in the 1979 act has been criticised for the lack of provisions to protect archaeological sites. That was noted by key witnesses and by the Built Environment Forum Scotland, in particular. The new provisions do not mean that sites would be scheduled willy-nilly, but the bill places an emphasis on sites of national importance, and the key test is how the monument contributes to our understanding or appreciation of our past.
The key issue for debate is the application of section 18, which the committee spent quite a bit of time considering. The new provision will introduce a power to issue a certificate that would guarantee that a building would not be listed during the following five years. I agree with the committee that such a development makes sense, but I am pretty sure that more work must be done to ensure that the provision is clear in law and that it will be used. The Law Society of Scotland, in a helpful letter that it circulated to members in advance of today’s debate, states that there seems to be some confusion around that. It seems obvious that the owner or the person with an interest should be able to apply, but we need a debate on what is meant by the wider interest of any person who is able to do that.
Clarity is needed on the existing provisions by which the public at large can apply for a building to be listed. Again, in my constituency, parents were able to have a local school listed to restrict the nature of the development in a planning application, so that process is certainly being used.
There is nothing in the bill that would stop that happening in the future. The decision to list should be based on the merits of each case, not on the stage at which the application is made. The parents in the situation that Pauline McNeill describes would have been able to apply for a certificate of immunity, but they would have run the risk that the listing might not have been granted.
The Law Society has raised the concern that the new provision could somehow thwart development, but that may not be the case, as the decision to list would still be based on the merits and demerits of the case itself, and not necessarily on the certificate of immunity.
I agree that the process should not be available to thwart a planning application, but I believe that some thought needs to go into what might be two similar processes. If I have read the bill correctly, consideration of an application for a certificate will also appraise whether the building should be listed, and ministers could conclude in that process that the building should be listed. If they decide that it is not to be listed, the developer gets immunity for five years. The provision is an important and welcome development. I just think that it is an aspect of the bill where the legal process needs to be scrutinised a bit more closely at stage 2.
With those comments, I express my full support for the committee’s report and the bill.
15:25
I note that the policy memorandum that accompanies the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill describes it as
“a tightly focused technical amending Bill”.
I am tempted to rechristen it a much ado about nothing bill, but as I never enjoy upsetting the minister, I instead suggest that it is not the major piece of work to overhaul legislation on the historic environment that it could and perhaps should have been.
I agree with Fiona Hyslop that Scotland is hugely fortunate in its historic environment. From the nation’s archaeological cradle, Orkney, to the iconic standing stones of Callanish; from our earliest living places, the earth houses and stone settlements such as Jarlshof and Skara Brae, to the brochs and keeps that are the earliest examples of our rich inheritance of castellated architecture; and including battlefields such as Bannockburn, Flodden, Sheriffmuir, Killiecrankie, Culloden and the rest, we have a rich inheritance indeed. The great thing is that the story of our historic environment is still unfolding. Aerial photography and crop markings regularly reveal unknown Pictish and Roman forts, and ancient coins and remnants of standing stones still surface during ploughing.
When my local plumber was excavating his back garden for a new house extension a few years back, he unearthed a unique collection of axe heads, arrows, swords and jewellery that were in a remarkable state of preservation considering that they had not seen the light of day for 3,000 years. The so-called St Andrews hoard, which is one of Scotland’s most important bronze age discoveries, can now be viewed in the national museum of Scotland.
It is absolutely right that an enlightened and caring society should wish to protect and conserve the best of its historical heritage. To know where we are going, it is important to know where we have come from. Of course, there is also the vital matter of tourism. However, in their enthusiasm to protect and conserve virtually everything, I believe that the bodies that are tasked with overseeing our historic environment have too often retreated to the ivory towers of academia, where common sense seems an alien quality and any who dare to question the edicts that are sent down from on high are caricatured as cultural vandals.
In previous speeches, I have highlighted the decisions that were made on several scheduled monuments and listed buildings as well as Historic Scotland’s apparent inability to dovetail conservation with legitimate local development. From recent meetings that I have had with Historic Scotland, I believe that a welcome wind of change is blowing through the organisation. However, although I agree with George Reid that Historic Scotland and the National Trust for Scotland should both be retained as our lead conservation bodies, I also believe that considerable streamlining of their joint activities is required to make them fit for purpose.
Does the member acknowledge that George Reid made it clear in his report that he did not see an immediate need for comprehensive historic environment legislation but that, as part of its development, the National Trust for Scotland would need to look at its governance, and that might require legislation?
Of course, George Reid was tasked with looking only at the National Trust for Scotland. He did not look more widely at the overall situation, so I still maintain that I would have liked the bill to deal with the matters that I mentioned. Instead, we seem to be largely tinkering at the edges of existing legislation, no matter how important that tinkering is.
I understand that the bill’s provisions are to help the Government to meet its international commitments under the Valletta convention, most of which are uncontentious. However, I want to deal with a few that are likely to raise concerns. In fairness, I think that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee also highlighted them in its useful report.
The first relates to changes to the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, from which the defence of ignorance of what defines a monument on the part of an owner is largely removed. Not every farmer who, when ploughing, unearths a cluster of stones necessarily recognises them as the remains of a prehistoric burial cist. If no skeleton is apparent or if the cist has previously been broken up, there could be considerable ambiguity about its status as a monument. Indeed, for us, the bill’s definition of an historic monument itself seems too broad.
Equally, concerns have been raised about the designation of gardens, designed landscapes and battlefields. As the Historic Houses Association Scotland has pointed out, putting together an inventory of battlefields is fraught with difficulties. Culloden, for example, is often described as the last battle fought on British soil but, more than a hundred years later, the so-called battle of the braes was fought between Skye crofters and Government militia. Was that a real battle? How does one define a battle? Is it defined by the number of people killed or its historical importance? Who decides what is important, especially when a designated battlefield might also be a crofter’s vital grazing land? None of those big questions seems to have been answered in the bill.
New powers have also been proposed to allow entry to a monument without the need for consent from the owner where the monument is at risk. The proposed definition of “imminent damage or destruction” seems loose and could well be abused to give unfettered entry to excavate sites without the permission of owners.
Although we broadly agree with the proposal for a certificate of immunity guaranteeing that a building will not be listed for five years from the granting of the certificate, we also believe that there is merit in the Law Society’s argument that the scope of those who may apply for such a certificate should be restricted to owners or occupiers. Extending the scope to “any person” will mean that not only those who are interested in property development in the positive sense but those who are hostile to property development will be able to apply. Restricting certificates to those who are directly involved would provide the necessary degree of certainty in the preparation of development proposals to which the minister alluded.
We on this side of the chamber are less convinced by the provision that listed buildings should carry a notice of liability for urgent works expenses. Such a move seems particularly iniquitous in cases in which an owner of a ruin who has had no say in its listing and no access to public funds to help save it might be prevented from selling it or the land it sits on because of an attached liability notice.
However, as I have said, the bill concerns itself largely with technical changes that, apart from those that I have highlighted, are broadly welcome. Although the major thrust of legislation on our historic environment will clearly have to be left to a more ambitious future bill, we will support this bill’s general principles.
15:32
I, too, thank all those who have helped the committee to reach this stage, particularly those who gave evidence. I also want to thank our clerks for their work in preparing the report and the minister and her civil servants. I welcome the minister’s announcement on the information packs; it will certainly be useful to see them in due course.
As we have heard, this amendment bill has received broad support at committee stage and I am pleased to put on record the Liberal Democrats’ support for it. The Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland’s 2006 report indicated the need for a review of heritage legislation in Scotland. I am pleased that that has come to fruition and I welcome the bill’s aim to address specific gaps and weaknesses in current legislative provision. As a result, we welcome the proposals on recovery of grants, on recovery of debt, on urgent repairs, on the modification of the defence of ignorance, on extension of notices and on the inventory of battlefields. I am not sure whether the chamber falls into the last category—we shall see.
We should applaud the work that has already been carried out across Scotland by local authorities, Historic Scotland, the NTS, owners and others to preserve our historic sites. I particularly applaud the thousands of volunteers who are involved in the preservation of our historic monuments and environment. As the member who represents Cramond, I pay tribute to the volunteers of the Cramond Heritage Trust who, over the years, have been involved in the discovery, excavation and preservation of the Roman baths and fort, the 18th century village, the iron mills and the marked nut fragments that show evidence of life in the area thousands of years ago. That last element brings me back to a point made by Ted Brocklebank: after all, the average person, farmer or whoever might not know that certain marked nut fragments can say so much while looking like so little.
The member raises an important issue. The defence of ignorance relates to areas that are scheduled monuments. If someone discovers something in an area that is not a scheduled monument, they cannot be accused of detracting from a scheduled monument. Does the member recognise that I addressed some of the issues relating to ploughing, especially on land that has been used in relation to the class consent? I am pleased that the committee examined those important issues thoroughly.
The cabinet secretary will give me some leeway—I was simply making the point that it is not always easy to see important historic evidence of where people have been in Scotland’s past. The work of the Cramond Heritage Trust and of thousands of volunteers across Scotland is to be valued and noted today.
The bill will harmonise the various strands of legislation that already cover Scotland’s historic environment. For example, it seeks to ensure consistency between elements of that legislation and the planning regime, and to align aspects of the listing and scheduling systems. It is crucial that we make it as easy as possible for those who are working to protect our historic environment to do just that. The proposals in the bill constitute a sensible and welcome approach to updating and modernising the governing legislation.
All of us are rightly proud of Scotland’s historic environment, which is fundamental to our understanding of Scotland’s past. It influences, shapes and enhances our social and cultural understanding and helps us to create a sense of identity as individuals, as part of a community and as a nation. It is also crucial to our tourism industry.
The importance of the historic environment in Scotland is widely acknowledged, but the scale and nature of the economic benefits that it provides remain poorly understood. In 2009, ECOTEC published a report entitled “Economic Impact of the Historic Environment in Scotland”, which found that the sector contributed in excess of £2.3 billion to Scotland, which represents £4.5 billion of output. The sector’s contribution to the national economy is estimated to be equivalent to 2.6 per cent of Scottish gross value added. The report concluded that our historic environment directly supports around 41,000 full-time equivalent employees, and the benefits that it provides are widely appreciated across Scotland.
In the evidence that it took, the committee saw that the sector is diverse and involves public bodies, private bodies and voluntary organisations working together. Tourism is perhaps the best recognised and most vital source of income for the sector. It is worth noting that a visitor experience survey by VisitScotland showed that 90 per cent of our international visitors spent time at castles, historic houses, palaces and the like. It is undeniable that the sites that we traditionally regard as visitor attractions are a magnet for tourism.
Although there has been widespread support for the bill, there have been some issues of debate. I note the concerns that a number of organisations raised in relation to the extension of the definition of what is a monument. However, as the stage 1 report documents, the committee expects the Scottish Government to act rigorously, having regard to strict criteria, when considering possible sites for designation. We welcome the minister’s reassurance that designation will be limited to areas of national importance.
As members know, the committee heard different views about the issue of statutory duties on councils and other public bodies. I have concerns about the financial implications for local authorities if further statutory duties are placed on them in respect of the historic environment. Many of the authorities that supplied written evidence to us expressed that view. The imposition of such duties would have a significant impact on all local authorities, especially in cities such as Edinburgh, which I represent. We will probably need to return to the issue. I welcome the minister’s indication that a working group has been set up to consider it. The matter needs to be kept under review. However, given the budget constraints that our local authorities face, it is absolutely right at the moment to progress the bill on the basis that it will be cost neutral.
The committee heard different opinions on section 18, which introduces a power for ministers to issue—or not to issue, as the case may be—a certificate that guarantees that a building will not be listed for five years. I agree with the minister that there is a risk in seeking a certificate of immunity, in the same way as there is a risk to communities, owners and others in seeking a listing. It is a question of balance. Applications for listing can be made by anybody, and we agree that it makes sense to balance that power, so that anyone can express a desire to have immunity for five years. We agree that the provisions might give greater certainty to the construction industry, which is valuable. There is also value in ensuring that owners of properties are notified of such applications.
The bill will protect our uniquely Scottish heritage and help to sustain Scotland and its tourism industry. We are pleased to support it.
15:40
I have no doubt that one of the pleasures of today’s debate will be members’ recollections of the many and varied historic sites that they have visited in Scotland, coupled, no doubt, with the occasional reference to historic buildings in their constituencies.
We should be careful, however, while acknowledging that we are debating the built environment, not to think of the historic environment as solely the built environment. I say that because evidence of our ancestors’ activities can be seen not just in our buildings, but in our landscape. The heather muir that we see today is not a natural but a semi-natural construct, and ditches, mounds, banks and hedgerows all say much about our past activities. Our forefathers speak to us not just through bricks and mortar, but through scenery.
We are fortunate. Perhaps we do not always appreciate how fortunate we are in having such a wealth of evidence of our ancestors’ activities. My wife’s country has few buildings pre-dating the 1800s, whereas we have thousands. That is an immense connection with the past, which shapes today’s culture, as well as tomorrow’s.
The link between the heritage of our built environment and our living culture is perfectly illustrated by Paisley’s sma’ shot cottages complex—although I do not have time now to explain the history of the weavers, their struggle for fair pay and their sma’ shot thread. Not only does the beautifully restored site offer the people of Renfrewshire the opportunity to see how their ancestors lived, it adds a tangible element to sma’ shot day, an annual event that is listed on the excellent intangible cultural heritage project’s website—yes, I am aware of the apparent paradox here, with a tangible element to an event that is listed on the intangible cultural heritage website. Many of the living cultural events that are listed on the website—events that bind communities and give people a sense of identity—are linked to our built heritage. The Kirkintilloch canal festival is another obvious example. Even when there is no explicit connection between constructions and events, the backdrops against which parades, festivals and celebrations take place are crucial. Historic monuments and buildings often form the markers and boundaries around which such events are based.
The importance of such rooted culture cannot be overstated. It provides us with a firm base and the sense of security that we all need. Scotland is profoundly rich in such rooted culture. That is not to say that our culture is better than any other culture—I do not believe that there are superior or inferior cultures. Were I Brazilian, my sense of belonging would no doubt come from Brazilian culture. There is no superior culture, but an appreciation of one’s own culture helps to build an appreciation of others. How can one properly understand and love others if one does not first understand and love oneself?
It is vital that we act to ensure that the cultural wealth of today, which is a gift from our forefathers, is passed on to our children, and that the Scots of tomorrow can still speak the Scots and Gaelic languages, still hear traditional music, still visit the historical sites and walk in countryside that shows its connection with our past.
We are fortunate, but it is easy to be complacent. In the past few hundred years we have lost much. I will give a few examples. In 1100, Inchinnan church was built and gifted to the Knights Templar; in 1800 it was demolished. Hamilton palace was built in the 1600s; in 1929 it was demolished. Paisley town jail was built in the 1800s; in 1970 it was demolished. Those are just a few examples of the thousands of sites that we have lost. Where are all the city walls? Why is Glasgow’s oldest building—in relative terms—so recent? It is vital that we avoid complacency and ensure that all Scotland understands its duty to protect our historic and cultural environment.
I had intended to ask the minister at this point what her views are on the suggestions on the built environment. Instead, I welcome her announcement of a working group.
Given the importance of our historic buildings, how can anybody do other than welcome the enhanced penalties for damaging or destroying them? There are some people in the chamber who have a less enlightened view of crime and punishment, and some might say that those who are accused of damaging an historic building should be tried and punished according to the norms of the era in which it was built. Thus, when someone is charged with damage to a 14th century church, guilt might be determined using ordeal by fire. If damage is done to a baronial hall, clearly trial by combat is the obvious solution. It would, of course, only be reasonable in the circumstances to allow the minister the right to appoint a champion, rather than participate herself—unless she preferred to participate herself, and I would not deny her the opportunity. As for punishment, we have the stock, the gallows and the iron maiden. Sadly, however, I fear that we must forgo such delights—and the fee-paying crowd that they would undoubtedly attract. Nonetheless, I cannot but welcome the increased penalties that are proposed in the bill. Historic buildings are unique. Once gone, there is no return.
I have one question for the minister, and I would appreciate clarification. Under section 4, courts will be required to recognise any financial benefits to the offender and the maximum fine will be £50,000. What will happen if an individual should obtain financial benefit greater than £50,000 from destroying or damaging an historic site?
I am delighted that we will soon have a register of battlefields in Scotland. No reasonable person can regard our record on the preservation of battlefields as other than lamentable. Before any member of the Opposition seeks to debate the point, let me put one question to the chamber: is there another nation on this earth that would have allowed a battlefield site as significant and unique as Bannockburn to be built upon? When one considers the development of that site, one easily sees that, in the past, insufficient care was taken of Scotland’s historic and cultural heritage.
The principle must surely be that historic buildings are not merely the property of an individual but the inheritance of a nation. We all have rights when it comes to our national heritage. The duty to pass that heritage to the next generation should be paramount and above the right of individuals to dispose of their property as they will.
15:46
I am pleased to speak in this debate on the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. As a member of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, I know that we have no shortage of legislation at the moment, as those of us who were in committee last night will confirm.
This afternoon, we are showing the full range of our committee’s responsibilities, and I am pleased to contribute to the debate. Although the bill is largely technical—it amends three acts and introduces some new provisions—its aim is to improve the way in which the historic environment is managed by the regulatory and planning authorities in a way that is both sustainable and secures the historic environment for the enjoyment and benefit of future generations.
Much of the dry description of what the bill does makes it sound fairly uninspiring, but what does our historic environment offer us? For children, it provides a springboard for the imagination and an insight into a world that is dramatically different from the one that they live in. The increasing engagement work that agencies such as Historic Scotland undertake helps to bring that to life for a modern audience.
The historical environment provides us all with an understanding of how Scotland emerged and how Scottish society took shape and left its mark on our landscape. In my own region of Fife, 280 sites and monuments have been designated as being of national importance and are protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. The sites cover all aspects of human occupation of Fife over the past 10,000 years, ranging from Mesolithic hunter-gatherer camps, dated to 7,500 BC, to the Royal Observer Corps bunkers of the cold war.
Many of the remains are a fragile and non-renewable resource, and we must all work together to preserve and enhance them. Fife Council archaeological unit offers information and advice on Fife’s sites and monuments to assist in achieving that goal. Fife also maintains a register—the Fife sites and monuments record—of all known archaeological and historical sites in the region, with the details of approximately 10,000 archaeological sites in the database.
The debate gives us a chance to acknowledge the work of those who provide the guardianship of historic buildings, sites and monuments, preserving them as records of Scotland’s history. That historic environment, which is regionally and nationally significant, adds to our rich culture and tells the story of Scotland and its people to visitors and historians.
However, the bill also recognises and attempts to accommodate—and at times encourage—development and change where it is appropriate. Continuing development is essential, but the greatest care must be taken to ensure that our heritage is preserved and protected. The preservation and study of Scotland’s historic environment is important to our understanding of our predecessors and will be our legacy to future generations.
The three existing pieces of legislation, aided by the addition of this bill, must create a framework whereby decisions are transparent, justified and fair, and achieve the right balance between development and conservation, though those two are not always incompatible.
I will highlight a couple of provisions in the bill. The bill introduces a new power to allow Scottish ministers to issue a certificate of immunity from listing, which will guarantee that a building will not be listed during the following five years. As others have observed, the proposal promoted an interesting discussion at committee and it is a good example of an attempt to try to get the balance right for all interested parties.
The driver for the introduction of certificates of immunity is the need to give certainty to developers or owners who are preparing proposals for a building or group of buildings. Of course, the outcome of the application for a certificate might be a decision to list, which would also provide certainty for the developer, albeit that it would not be the outcome that they had hoped for.
Some witnesses argued for a restriction on who could apply for a certificate, suggesting that only owners or occupiers of land or buildings should be able to do so. Other people argued that the approach should be consistent with the approach to applications to list, and that anyone should be able to apply for a certificate of immunity. The committee thought that limiting who could apply could exclude potential buyers who were looking for certainty. We were persuaded by the parallel with people who can apply to list. However, as the minister knows, we received representations from the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Property Federation, who continued to question the need for such consistency of approach. They argued that applying to list and applying for a certificate of immunity were significantly different, so the right to apply for the latter should be restricted.
Those bodies also expressed concern that there is no time limit for ministerial issue of a certificate of immunity. I pursued the matter in the committee, and although there is no timescale, the minister gave a commitment to issue guidance on the application process, to try to address such concerns. We were told that it typically takes four to six months to list a building, and that there is no obligation on anyone to pursue a certificate of immunity. I welcome what the minister said about those issues during her opening speech. When she sums up, will she say whether further discussions are planned with the people who remain to be convinced?
As the minister said, the Built Environment Forum Scotland argued for a strengthened legislative context and expressed concern about the current and future capacity of local authorities, in particular, to deliver good outcomes for the historic environment. The forum’s concerns are reflected in annex C of the committee’s report, which includes letters that the Finance Committee received. When local authorities were asked to comment on the bill, they said that the discretionary nature of the responsibilities made it difficult to provide an accurate figure. One authority welcomed the flexibility that the additional powers in the bill will provide, but said that it would have to consider carefully on a case-by-case basis whether to use the powers. The minister might want to comment further on the challenge for local authorities of meeting their responsibilities to the historic environment in a tightening economic environment.
I encourage members to support the conclusions of the stage 1 report and I look forward to stage 2.
15:52
For the avoidance of doubt, I declare an interest as a member of Historic Scotland. I congratulate Karen Whitefield and her colleagues on the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on their work.
It is fair to say that, despite Karen Whitefield’s legitimate comments about conflict between people who own or seek to protect listed buildings and people who seek access to them, there is a high degree of consensus on the bill. That is in no small part due to a rigorous approach to the consultation. As members know, the process that was initiated by the previous Scottish Executive culminated in the former Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland’s 2006 report, the recommendations of which were taken forward pragmatically by the current Administration.
I commend that general approach. The experience of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, of which I am a member, on the bills that led to the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 showed what can be derived from a consensual approach that is achieved through early engagement and rigorous consultation.
The bill’s benefits are well recognised. It is a technical bill and people might want to do something far more wide reaching in future, but it will introduce improvements that will help in the sustainable management of our historic environment. I think that all members can support that. The policy memorandum says:
“Scotland’s historic environment is intrinsic to our sense of place and our strong cultural identity and plays a large role in helping to attract visitors to Scotland. It makes a significant contribution to the economy, for example through tourism and the support of indigenous craft skills, and provides the people of Scotland with a rich environment in which to live and work.”
That is all true. As Margaret Smith said, the Built Environment Forum Scotland suggested that the sector contributes in excess of £2.3 billion to Scotland’s GVA, directly supports 41,000 full-time-equivalent employees and indirectly involves many more thousands of people.
Impressive though those figures are, testifying to the scale of the importance of the sector, they rather underplay the significance of its local impact. My constituency provides a perfect illustration of that. So as not to disappoint Bill Wilson, given what he had to say, I will focus much of the rest of my remarks on that impact, which highlights the importance of ensuring that the legislative framework is modernised and remains fit for purpose.
The heart of Neolithic Orkney world heritage site is one of four such sites in Scotland, although other sites harbour aspirations and I wish them well. It acts as a magnet for the many thousands of tourists who come to Orkney each year. This week, there has been much talk, certainly among my northerly neighbours, including my party leader, about Shetland’s inclusion in the Lonely Planet’s top 10 destinations. I warmly congratulate Shetland on that but note that the Lonely Planet continues to highlight the richness of what Orkney has to offer, describing it as
“A glittering centrepiece in Scotland’s treasure chest of attractions.”
Historic Scotland’s stewardship of Skara Brae, Maeshowe and other sites in Orkney is a critical factor in helping the islands to maintain and develop the essential quality of the tourism experience. I echo Ted Brocklebank’s observations about the approach of Historic Scotland. The sites are also at the heart of Orkney’s unrivalled archaeological heritage. They not only attract tourists to the islands, but provide archaeologists from the United Kingdom and across the world with invaluable hands-on experience and a unique opportunity to gain an insight into what life was like 4,000 to 5,000 years ago.
The discovery was made last year of a 5,000-year-old figurine—the only Neolithic carving of a human face to be found in Scotland so far. I am well aware of the impact of the tour of the Westray wife around Orkney in spurring interest in Orkney and what is happening there. Real interest has also been generated by the Ness of Brodgar dig, which took place earlier this year. I had the pleasure of visiting it over the summer. At one stage, it appeared that Neil Oliver and his colleagues from BBC Scotland had taken up permanent residence there. I recall one particularly uncomfortable moment when he asked what I thought had motivated Neolithic man to paint some of the stonework at the site, which was part of an exciting discovery back in July. It is never comfortable to have the limits of one’s knowledge so cruelly and publicly exposed. Under pressure, I mumbled something about it acting as a warning to people not to bump their heads on the low ceilings. I am not sure that my less-than-insightful remarks will make it into the programme.
The abundant local resource has enabled Orkney College to develop an archaeological course framework, including PhDs, which has been recognised as truly world class and which will serve the university of the Highlands and Islands well in the future. I was interested in the comments that Ted Brocklebank and Margaret Smith made about the abundance of that resource. It has often been said by farmers in my constituency, with a degree of frustration at times, that they can barely stick a spade in the ground without bumping up against some archaeological artefact or other. I have taken up the issue with Fiona Hyslop’s colleague, Richard Lochhead, in the past, and I am somewhat reassured by the comments that she was able to make in her opening remarks.
I note the observations of the Built Environment Forum Scotland, which highlight the need for expert advice in helping communities to protect, manage and appreciate local heritage. It is certainly true that Orkney is well served in that regard, although I realise that that is not necessarily the case nationwide. It is not just advice for those who are involved in the planning process that we need. For our archaeological sites and our historic built environment to be accessible and enjoyed as widely as possible, good interpretation and services such as rangers can be necessary. They help to develop understanding and appreciation not just among tourists, but among locals, who are often guilty of taking for granted what is on their own doorstep.
As the bill makes clear, the key is to ensure the sustainable management of our historic environment. It is an enormously valuable resource, but one whose overexploitation can cause damage that may be long lasting and irretrievable, as Pauline McNeill observed. That can be physical damage or damage to the quality of the tourist experience. I know that that is a concern in Orkney, given the allure of Skara Brae and the other parts of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization site. We need to take care, and I hope that the bill will help in that regard.
I hope that the bill will also play a part in helping to manage successfully the interrelationship between the particular needs of our historic environment and wider economic considerations and imperatives. It may be unavoidable, at times, that the planning process becomes confrontational. However, better communication, with proactive and pragmatic engagement by Historic Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and others with—in the case of Orkney—the renewable energy industry, would help to take some of the heat out of those issues. I accept the fact that this is a technical bill; nevertheless, it is an important one. I look forward to seeing it progress and improve over the months ahead.
16:00
I congratulate my former colleagues on the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on the work that they have undertaken thus far on the bill. I apologise in advance for needing to nip out to a prior meeting after making my speech.
The Parliament referred the bill to the committee not long before I moved to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, which meant that, unfortunately, I was unable to take part in any of the deliberations on the bill as introduced. Certainly, taking best care of Scotland’s diverse and hugely important historical environment was never far from the committee’s cultural considerations. I welcome the opportunity the chamber has today to move the bill forward.
It is literally a year and a day since the Scottish Government hosted Scotland’s first ever summit for the historic and built environment. I am sure that the summit helped to inform some of the process that has resulted in the bill that is before us today. We know that the roots of the bill can be found in the discussion paper that the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland produced on the need for a review of existing legislation, which arose from wider discussion on the three main acts that the Government is seeking to build on with the bill. We might call that process the bill’s legislative heritage.
By taking steps to harmonise some of the processes that are involved in protecting scheduled monuments and listed buildings, the bill will help to simplify the bureaucracy for developers, planning authorities and, perhaps most important, the voluntary preservation and historical societies that have an interest in protecting their local heritage. Many voluntary groups in the South of Scotland and, no doubt, across the whole of the country—we have heard about some of them today—want to take more action to preserve and protect much-loved local buildings. However, they often find that they lack the capacity or resources to do so, particularly when they are up against corporate developers or a determined local authority.
I have spoken in the chamber previously about the High mill in Clydesdale. It is a B-listed structure, which Historic Scotland defines as being
“of regional or more than local importance, or a major example of some particular period, style or building type which may have been altered.”
In its listing of the building, Historic Scotland states that it was built in 1797 and remains the most complete surviving windmill in Scotland. Sadly, it also remains at risk of collapse, despite a concerted campaign by the Clydesdale mills society.
In recent months, South Lanarkshire Council has undertaken a desk exercise to review options for the mill. The council continues to encounter difficulties in enforcing a compulsory works notice. I am sure that the Clydesdale mills society and others will be interested to learn more about the powers in the bill to allow the Scottish Government to offer further grants for work to be undertaken on an ancient monument even when the owner has not requested such action. The increased scope for awarding grants to a wider range of initiatives that promote understanding of our historic, cultural, architectural, artistic or archaeological heritage is very welcome.
The bill contains provisions to strengthen statutory protection and lower the bar for criminal responsibility in terms of the offence of disturbing a scheduled monument. Historic Scotland lists more than 8,000 scheduled monuments in its register, ranging from mottes and baileys, such as those found on Carnwath golf course and north of Abington, to industrial sites, such as New Lanark and the Wilsontown ironworks. Many of those locations are remote or isolated, and it is difficult to supervise them continually. It is therefore welcome that the bill will make it easier to prosecute anyone who mistreats such sites.
Historic Scotland also holds scheduled properties in care for the Scottish ministers—for example, the Whithorn priory and museum, St Ninian’s chapel and St Ninian’s cave, all of which are in the South of Scotland region. I am sure that interest in the two St Ninian sites will have increased following the recent visit to Scotland of Pope Benedict and the celebration of St Ninian’s day on 16 September. Protecting our historic sites effectively means that, when new opportunities arise to appreciate them or to view their significance from a different perspective, we can do so with confidence. As other members have said, doing so also promotes tourism.
The bill will clarify and extend the grounds on which an area can be designated to include
“any site that comprises any thing, or group of things, that evidence previous human activity”.
That means that areas where there may not have been any clearly defined structure can still be protected, such as a site where scattered flint tools have been found. Members may recall that one such site that may benefit from the provisions of the bill is outside of Elsrickle, near Biggar, where the Biggar archaeology group discovered the remains of the oldest human settlement ever discovered in Scotland, which the group excavated with the co-operation of the landowner. The discovery, which was made during the year of homecoming, was a tremendous achievement for the organisation, which is a voluntary group. Members may recall the recent display of the group’s work that I sponsored in the Parliament.
I was interested to hear Karen Whitefield’s comments about concerns that have been raised about that aspect of the bill. Although as a history graduate I am interested in finding out about our past and celebrating our history, I recognise that there are sometimes conflicts when we do so. For example, the archaeological and historical studies at the site of Crawfordjohn primary school have resulted in a delay in information getting to the parents about the future of the school, as the children have been decanted to another local school with no timescale given for the completion of the studies. That uncertainty is worrying for parents, and I hope that a decision on that can be sped up.
However, improving opportunities for designation may also help groups such as Lanark community council, which is currently urgently seeking protection for the old Lanark grammar school building on Albany Drive in the town. Many local residents would wish that historic building to be retained—perhaps adapted for modern use, such as flats, but keeping the building’s façade, which many know and love. Sadly, it appears that South Lanarkshire Council is minded to allow the building to be demolished, and the community council is urgently seeking advice from Historic Scotland on what options for designation may exist. I have written to Historic Scotland to add my support to those efforts.
The bill will clarify and strengthen the protection of Scotland’s historic environment. One of the successes of devolution in the past 11 years has been the opportunity to explore policy areas such as our heritage, refine them, allow far greater democratic scrutiny of them, put them at the forefront of our thoughts and rectify past decisions that relegated our history and culture to an afterthought.
I wish the committee all the best for the progression of the bill.
16:06
The bill is relatively uncontroversial. It has already received broad support among members of the committee and, as is clear from the debate, members of the Parliament more widely. As Ted Brocklebank pointed out in his speech, the Government’s description of it as
“a tightly focused technical amending Bill”
did much to give the game away and lower our expectations. However, although it is not the most innovative piece of proposed legislation and despite the fact that we are not engaging in a party-political spat—something that we should probably celebrate with six months to go to an election—none of that detracts from the importance of the subject.
From the remarks that members have made, I know that we are immensely proud of Scotland’s historic environment—our castles, buildings and monuments. Some may be symbolic of less enlightened times but they are all part of our long and rich past and help us to understand our place in the world. We all have our favourites. There are the picturesque, such as Eilean Donan castle on the way up to Skye; the significant, such as the New Lanark mills of David Dale and Robert Owen; and the simply ancient, such as the standing stones at Callanish, which Ted Brocklebank mentioned.
We enjoy those structures for a host of reasons, but we are able to enjoy them at least in part because of the work of people who have gone before us, who did much to protect and preserve them. We are able to enjoy them also because of the legislation that has been put in place to protect those efforts. For the most part, the bill restates those laws and powers. There are notable steps forward. In particular, I highlight and congratulate the minister on the new measures to help in the identification of our battlegrounds and historic gardens.
However, discussion around the bill has illuminated at least a couple of areas of weakness. The Built Environment Forum Scotland, which brings together 21 non-governmental organisations with an interest in this policy area, highlighted two points in particular. The first is the need and opportunity that the bill presents to strengthen the legislative context for existing policy—not, I emphasise, to add any more duties, powers or burdens, but simply to give greater priority to existing duties. The second is the need and opportunity to ensure that planning authorities have access to, and give special regard to, appropriate information and expert advice on the historic environment.
On the latter point, I hope that we all agree that our local authorities and other public bodies should have sufficient access to historical and archaeological expertise and, in particular, local knowledge. At the moment, such expertise lies in the hands of, and is provided by, a very small number of people. In a city the size of Edinburgh, for example, there may be a handful of people who provide advice. In a smaller local authority area, there might be only one officer. The fear is that, with no statutory basis behind public policy in that area, we could easily lose the little resource that exists.
I hope that members recognise that anxiety at a time of seemingly ever greater economic determinism. At a time of falling budgets, when the only thing that matters is the bottom line, most political energy will go into protecting front-line public services. Experience shows that areas such as culture, music, sport and the historic environment are the most likely to face the axe. If very few people are employed in the historic environment sector already, and if much local knowledge is in the guardianship of very few individuals, the loss of such jobs will leave us ignorant and unable to give sufficient attention and weight to our heritage in decision making. That will be to the detriment of not only future generations. Our environment is crucial to our quality of life. Our wellbeing and our cultural prosperity are even more important to our happiness at a time of cuts.
The Built Environment Forum Scotland highlighted the opportunity that the bill presents to provide for
“a responsibility on all public bodies to protect, enhance and have special regard to Scotland’s historic environment”.
Most Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee members were struck by a point that was made by witnesses repeatedly and by the minister—that the vast majority of our historic environment will not be affected by the bill, because it is unlisted, unscheduled and unprotected. The Built Environment Forum Scotland does not want new duties to be introduced or new burdens or new costs to be imposed on our hard-pressed local authorities. It simply asks for a restatement of, and greater priority to be given to, existing duties.
In my opening remarks, I suggested that the bill is not controversial.
The point is crucial. I re-emphasise that what the BEFS proposes would be an additional duty. If Ken Macintosh says that it is not a duty and that it is covered elsewhere, will he explain where it is covered? He has referred to local authorities, but the duty proposed by the BEFS would apply to public bodies. There is a large number of public bodies, including the health service, the Ministry of Defence—you name it. The point is important. I have established a working group to ensure that the result of what we are trying to achieve can be promoted, but I have concerns about what is put in law.
I appreciate that our local authorities are not looking for extra burdens at this time. Paragraph 1.40 of the Scottish Government’s historic environment policy says:
“It is long-established policy that all government departments should discharge properly their duty of care for heritage assets they own or lease. This means that, for example, the Ministry of Defence has robust policies and procedures in place”.
I will not go on, but a duty of care already exists, and local authorities have several other existing powers and duties. The intention is to promote the attention that is given to the historic environment when decisions on planning and aspects of the built environment are taken.
Ken Macintosh is right about a duty of care for Government departments, but widening the scope to public bodies is an issue. The technical proposal is for a duty to enhance the historic environment, which is different.
I am not sure whether the minister and I are miles apart on the matter. I am certainly encouraged that room for discussion exists about the wording and about giving greater priority to the issue, because the aim is not to place extra duties on local government.
Another worry, to which Karen Whitefield referred, is about tension between those who want to protect our past and those who want to modernise or develop the environment. I do not believe that everything should be preserved. In fact, the process of development often uncovers artefacts and allows them to be dug up, revealed and displayed.
I reassure members that people who work in the sector are at pains to move away from the language of preservation and from that approach. The idea of heritage as something that cannot be touched is old-fashioned. The Built Environment Forum Scotland talks about using knowledge and information as a way of managing our historic environment. It points out that the bill addresses the few loopholes that might exist in relation to flagship archaeological sites or buildings. The structures that need to be preserved will be preserved. However, the forum believes that a more informed approach would help the vast majority of unscheduled sites and unlisted buildings.
Old buildings that become redundant might become museum pieces, but they are more likely to be demolished, whereas a change of use or purpose might be desirable and possible. Only if we understand the importance and significance of what we look at can we manage that change sensitively. Both points that the BEFS raises—the need to have access to information and the need to behave responsibly with that information—are intertwined.
There are examples of the Scottish Parliament taking a similar approach in recent pieces of legislation. For example, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 introduced a broad duty to ensure biodiversity, and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 took a similar approach to the protection of the marine environment.
It is easy to dismiss those who wish to protect our historic environment as nostalgic or romantic. I do not think that that is fair, but even if it were true, surely there should be room for romance in our lives. There is no doubt that many people share that enthusiasm. Just this week, there was a report about a man in Orkney finding a 5,000-year-old burial plot in his back garden and, last year, some 2,000-year-old gold jewellery was found in Stirlingshire. A large number of people go out every week or every month to look for treasure in fields with their metal detectors. Some, like those on the “Antiques Roadshow”, might be disappointed when they discover that their find is not worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, but I am sure that the treasure that they really seek is our past. The key motivation is to make a find and to experience the joy of discovering the hitherto undiscovered.
Let us give the historic environment its place. As the bill proceeds, let us think about whether we have got the balance right and whether we could and should do more to fulfil our responsibilities.
16:16
As a nation that is rightly proud of its heritage and history, Scotland possesses a robust system for the protection and preservation of historic structures and landmarks. Nevertheless, it sometimes needs to be explained to visitors and, indeed, to Scots themselves that Scotland does not have all those historic buildings by mere accident; they are there because, as a nation, we have actively chosen to maintain them.
Ted Brocklebank rightly mentioned the Callanish stones as an example of an outstanding historic structure. The story about the councillor in the 1960s who wanted to knock them down to make room for council houses may well be apocryphal, but it nonetheless eloquently conveys its own warning from our country’s recent architectural and planning history.
Maintaining historic buildings is not a simple matter, and it is certainly not the same as merely preserving ruins. The historic environments in question have often moved beyond their original purposes and evolved into repositories of local and national identity but, in general, they cannot do that very effectively unless they are also given a continuing useful purpose in the community.
One of the most contentious issues is a philosophical one. Should a historic building be preserved in aspic and, if so, at what stage in its history should that happen? The example—which, this time, is not apocryphal—comes to mind of the proposal in regard to a historic building in my constituency that the temporary Perspex sheeting over a broken window should be preserved as
“part of the development of the building’s recent history”.
Maintaining historic sites is anything but simple and it needs to be, at least in part, a pragmatic business.
Just as our historic environments have evolved to serve new purposes, the legislation that has been designed to protect and preserve them must evolve as well. We must remain flexible and willing to adapt our approach to suit new developments and realities.
The bill reflects such a practical approach. That much became clear during the evidence that the committee took, and it is reflected in the support for the bill that has been expressed across the political divide. Our consideration of the bill made for some of the more unusual evidence that the committee has heard, which covered subjects as varied as the disputed location of various battlefields, speculation on whether Prince William might get engaged in Fife and the need to preserve the cobblestones in Kelso square. Mercifully, the latter did not become the subject of a paving amendment.
The bill will amend current processes to provide greater protection for Scotland’s historic environments. By targeting weak points and gaps in existing legislation, it will allow Scotland to better safeguard and preserve its heritage while utilising the strengths of existing frameworks and institutions.
One of the great strengths of such an adaptive approach is the minimisation of costs and burdens. The bill will considerably improve our historic environment protection strategy without encumbering public and private stakeholders in the historic environment sector with enormous new financial or logistical burdens. The utilisation of existing frameworks and institutions will mean that such an approach will have minimal financial cost.
The bill will explicitly enable Scottish ministers to recover grants in the event that the specific preconditions of those grants are violated. Such a measure, although not entirely new, will help to ensure that expenditure on historic sites can always be demonstrated to have a public benefit. In a time of cuts to the money that is available to Scotland, that is an important consideration, and the bill exemplifies the taking of a responsible stance towards such public expenditure.
Another important aspect that has been looked at is the need for the bill to be responsive to stakeholders and complementary to other on-going efforts in the sector. Thanks to the invaluable contributions of interested parties, including the owners of historic homes and gardens and a variety of agencies such as the National Trust for Scotland and Historic Scotland, a bill now exists that is highly responsive to the concerns and needs of those who seek to preserve Scotland’s historic environments. The bill strengthens and standardises enforcement measures that are intended to protect historic environments, and implementation of the new measures will ensure that historic buildings receive more comprehensive protection.
Consultation also allowed the proposed legislation to be drafted in a way that complements existing non-legislative endeavours and brings Scottish policy into harmony with European initiatives on the protection of heritage sites. The bill is constructed in a manner that complements endeavours such as the welcome efforts to make Historic Scotland more accessible and adaptable as an institution. It also makes Scottish policy concordant with Council of Europe initiatives on the designation of archaeological heritage.
By ensuring that the proposed legislation remains complementary to existing work, we are able to ensure that it will form part of a cohesive approach to the preservation of historic environments that gives serious thought to the future. That will ensure the survival of our historic sites for future generations. In the years to come, the new practical considerations might force us to fine-tune our approach again. However, with the bill, we have taken an important practical step.
Our wealth of historic treasures is an irreplaceable asset, but it carries a burden of responsibility. As a country, we neither shirk nor resent that burden; indeed, we proudly accept it. The Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is our instrument to act on that responsibility, and I commend it to the chamber.
16:22
I declare an interest in that I am an occupier and joint owner of a property that is listed as being worthy of statutory protection under the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.
Concern about the historic environment is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. Indeed, it is appropriate that the debate should be held and the bill introduced in Edinburgh, as part expiation for the gross crimes against our historic environment that have been committed in our capital city during the past 50 years.
Let us consider the fate of George Square, which was one of the most perfect Georgian squares anywhere in the world until it was crudely smashed by the University of Edinburgh, which went against massive public opinion to construct a variety of modern buildings of variable architectural merit, including the ghastly Appleton tower. Let us consider the damage that the same institution did to historic Potterrow, the street on which Nancy McLehose, or Clarinda, the inspiration for “Ae Fond Kiss”, was lodged when she attracted the attention of Robert Burns. Its pleasing architecture and romantic spiral stairways were lost for ever to the demolition ball, to be replaced by cheap, factory-built units, which give the area all the ambience of a deserted factory site.
The University of Edinburgh was not the only vandal that was let loose in this historic city. Let us think of the perfectly serviceable and respectful buildings on the corner of Lawnmarket and George IV Bridge, which housed the Royal Medical Society, among other institutions. They were replaced by the asbestos-ridden, east European-type monstrosity that served as offices for the Parliament and which, in turn, has been demolished.
Let us look at two of Edinburgh’s most public disgraces. In historic and highly visible Princes Street, almost every building that was worth preserving has either been totally swamped by its neighbours or got rid of altogether in exchange for third-rate commercial development. Of particular concern is the magnificent Victorian façade of the New Club, which was demolished to make way for a near-brutalist replacement that makes me shudder every time I pass it.
Then there is the St James centre. Edinburgh citizens of a certain age will remember the well-proportioned St James Square that preceded it, an 18th century delight which, to our eternal shame, was swept away in the name of progress. While I am talking about the city centre, members should not forget that it seemed to be only luck and a degree of planning constipation that prevented Edinburgh from having an inner-city bypass like the M8 through Glasgow—an elevated concrete roadway that was planned to extend around Edinburgh castle and across the Meadows. Edinburgh certainly cannot hold its head high in this respect.
Things have changed, have they not? Edinburgh’s world heritage status under UNESCO means that our city planners have to contend with not only local pressure groups but professional heritage experts from all over the world. Developments such as those proposed for the old Haymarket goods yard and the Caltongate project come under the beady eyes of professional, external scrutineers. It is pleasing to note that UNESCO observers pronounce themselves satisfied that in Edinburgh we now have a planning, development and conservation environment that is world class.
The bill seeks to increase the protection that is given to listed buildings and scheduled monuments, so that—I hope—the rape of George Square could not happen today. That is good. If I have a concern, it is that we might go too far the other way. Let us take for example the case of the Royal Commonwealth pool, just across the park from where I am speaking. In 1993, it was selected as one of 60 key Scottish monuments of the post-war period, and it was nominated in 2002 by the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland as one of the most significant modern contributions to Scottish heritage. It is now grade A listed—untouchable, in fact.
However, the fact of the pool’s listing has meant that refurbishment has taken longer and cost many millions more. Its closure for a full two years as a consequence has meant that the only international diving pool in Scotland has been denied to our Olympic hopes for that period of time, Sunderland being the nearest alternative. Even when it reopens, the pool will be unfit for international swimming competitions as it will still have too few lanes and the listing of the building means that it cannot be widened sufficiently to allow more. In the unlikely event that Edinburgh were ever asked again to host the Commonwealth games, the Commonwealth pool could not be used.
We need to ask whether it was more important to maintain a 40-year-old building that was no longer entirely fit for purpose than to spend the money on a new project that would have fulfilled the purpose of the original building at less cost and in less time. Is our built heritage more important than having a facility that is suited to the needs of today? Like Alasdair Allan, I ask that question. Are we sticking things in aspic, and should we move on? Should an international swimming pool be an international swimming pool or an historic monument?
Another example is the potential clash between climate change requirements and the desire to protect our heritage. We spend money exhorting people to double glaze their windows but have prevented the owners of listed buildings from following that course. I am pleased to see in Fiona Hyslop’s response to a recent parliamentary question that some tentative progress has been made in dealing with that issue, but I note that windows can now be replaced by double glazing only if they are not the original ones. If we look around the windows in the new town of Edinburgh, we will see lots and lots of panes. There must be quite a bit of temptation for residents who feel the cold to have a few accidents with their window panes so that they can fulfil the requirements for getting double glazing. Far be it from me to suggest that; I am making a forecast rather than a suggestion.
Overall, I am pleased to welcome the bill, but I look forward to the day when protecting our heritage goes hand in hand with attending to all the other needs of society.
We move now to the wind-up speeches. I call Iain Smith.
16:29
There are always two concerns to members when we wind up in a debate. One is that everything that we wanted to say has already been said and the other is that the Presiding Officer has not told us how long we have for our speech.
Six and a half minutes, if it is any help.
The third is that the time limit turns out to be more than we were expecting.
One of the benefits of having a Parliament in Scotland is that we are sometimes able to pass legislation that would never have reached the timetable for consideration at Westminster. Some of that legislation has been fairly major, such as land reform; some has been more minor, but important nonetheless. The bill is an example of legislation that there would probably never have been time for at Westminster. It is nonetheless an important and worthy piece of legislation. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it today.
I agree with Ted Brocklebank that this is not necessarily the bill that the historic environment needs in the long term. There will be a need for further legislation in future—perhaps in the next parliamentary session or even the one after that—to consider the wider issues of how we protect the historic environment. I will return to that later.
The importance of the historic environment to Scotland has been stated. It contributes more than £2.3 billion to the economy, mainly through tourism, the construction industry and transport. It directly supports more than 40,000 jobs, or 60,000 if we include the spin-off benefits in other sectors. It is estimated to contribute some £1.4 billion in employees’ income. The sector’s contribution to the national economy is estimated to be 2.6 per cent of the Scottish GVA, or gross value added, accounting for an estimated 2.5 per cent of Scotland’s total employment.
Those figures come from the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland’s report on the economic impact of the historic environment of Scotland, which was mentioned earlier, and they are repeated in George Reid’s excellent report on his review of the National Trust for Scotland, “Fit for Purpose”. George Reid’s report raised some important issues beyond those that are immediately necessary to get the National Trust back on to the right footing—I welcome the progress that has been made there.
George Reid raised the issue of whether the appropriate bodies are managing the historic structures in Scotland. There is a need to seriously consider that issue. He highlighted various monuments and ruins, such as Balmerino abbey in my constituency, which is currently managed by the National Trust. He asks whether it would be better managed by Historic Scotland, which has the expertise and craftsmen to better maintain and look after such structures. Issues such as that need to be considered in the round. Perhaps we should be seriously considering having discussions with all the relevant bodies, including Historic Scotland, the National Trust and the national parks and local authorities, to ensure that the right body manages—though not necessarily owns—the properties and scheduled monuments of Scotland.
That is an important point. I reassure the member that Historic Scotland is in discussions with the National Trust, not least about an exchange of skills. The co-operation that he highlighted is already happening.
I welcome that point from the minister.
Does Iain Smith accept that an even more anomalous example of where there should be streamlining between the work of the National Trust and Historic Scotland is at Hill of Tarvit? There are two sites there: Hill of Tarvit, which is managed by the National Trust; and, 100yd away, Scotstarvit tower, which is managed by Historic Scotland. Surely that kind of thing is a nonsense and should be looked at.
There are opportunities throughout the country for Historic Scotland and the National Trust to consider how they manage properties. Again, it is not about the ownership of the properties but about how they are managed and who runs them on a day-to-day basis. There are other places in Fife where the same issue can be considered.
We need to consider other aspects of the wider historic environment legislation. I found Ian McKee’s contribution extremely interesting because it raised a number of concerns that I share. He mentioned the St James centre. I recollect discussions that I had with a good friend of mine in the past, in which we decided that one of the tools that we may need to add to our historic environment portfolio is a compulsory demolition order to get rid of buildings that are inappropriate for their settings and do nothing to enhance Scotland. Oddly enough, the St James centre was high on the list for such an order.
Ian McKee also said that we need to be sensible about how we apply the rules in relation to those buildings that are scheduled and listed and ensure that we do not stick them in aspic in such a way that they cannot be sensitively and sensibly redeveloped. The buildings at risk register shows that there are many examples across Scotland of buildings that could be brought back into use were there an opportunity to make appropriate alterations to them that, although they might not be entirely to the satisfaction of Historic Scotland, would be in keeping with the way in which a building might normally develop in the course of its life. Buildings have never been built and then left alone. I have just completed a fairly major renovation of my home, so I am aware of the fact that one must continue to renew and refresh buildings. The idea that, once a building is listed, nothing should ever happen to it other than to let it fall down is not appropriate. We need to think carefully about that.
We need to think about the process of how we list buildings, as that process is questionable and not transparent. One has to ask why some buildings are listed. No one in my constituency can figure out why Madras college’s Kilrymont Road buildings have been listed. They are not very attractive buildings. Apparently, they are examples of an architectural type, but that architectural type is one from the 1960s that we should be forgetting, not preserving. The sooner a bulldozer goes to that building and we get a nice, new Madras college, the better, as far as I am concerned.
This is an important piece of legislation, and not one of our more controversial ones. I am happy to support the committee’s report and the bill.
16:36
I apologise for having had to leave the chamber for 10 minutes earlier, which caused me to miss a couple of members’ speeches.
This has been an informed and useful debate, and I am pleased to have taken part of it. Earlier, Ted Brocklebank said that some people might be tempted to see the bill as merely a technical, amending instrument rather than as anything of any great import and substance, noting that some might call it a much-ado-about-nothing bill. I dare say that that view is true with regard to some of the aspects of detail, but we must certainly not allow that to be the general reaction. Indeed, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that it is not.
As many speakers have said, Scotland’s historic environment is a precious part of the fabric of this country. It is one of the most defining aspects of Scotland and can bring enormous social and economic benefit, especially in the form of visitor income. The minister’s comments about Linlithgow and Dr McKee’s comments about George Square in Edinburgh, which I visited when I was at school, were appropriate. We do not understand how important our historic environment is until something happens to take it away from us.
The bill matters, even if it requires some important amendments and, if Mr Macintosh has anything to do with it, some semantic changes.
Also in the bill’s favour is the minimal cost that is involved, which is a pleasant change from some recent bills and has, I am sure, brought some comfort to the Scottish Government in these difficult economic times. Perhaps that is one reason why there has been no serious opposition to the bill, although I would like to suggest that that is also due to the considerable passion and commitment of those who are involved at the front line, including the hundreds of volunteers to whom Margaret Smith referred who are protecting our historic environment. At stage 1, they made a powerful case for the principles of the bill and its prime objective, which is to preserve and enhance Scotland’s historic environment for future generations. Their comments were extremely balanced and helpful to our deliberations. Perhaps they ensured that the atmosphere in the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee was less highly politically charged than usual, at least for a short while.
Ted Brocklebank made the point that the organisation of certain bodies that oversee the administration of our historic environment could be streamlined. That point was picked up by several speakers, and I think that there can be no opposition to the view that there is a need to simplify and clarify certain aspects of the management of the historic environment. Iain Smith referred to—
Will the member give way?
Of course.
I thank Elizabeth Smith for giving way. [Laughter.] I had to be very careful to get the name right.
Ted Brocklebank tried to give the chamber the impression that, if George Reid had canvassed opinion on the possibility of a merger between the National Trust and Historic Scotland, he might have come out in favour of that. I declare an interest as a member of the National Trust’s council, and I reassure members that, although the idea was widely discussed by the board, George Reid and the council categorically ruled it out as a way forward for the National Trust—and for Historic Scotland, for that matter.
Your intervention is approaching a speech, Mr Harper.
I am sorry. I am asking whether the member is aware of that, and if—
I call Elizabeth Smith.
I am glad that you said that, Presiding Officer. I have been called many things today, but I am glad that you got my name right.
I point out to Robin Harper that I do not think that that is what Ted Brocklebank said. Mr Brocklebank and Iain Smith both pointed out the need for some streamlining and clarification of the bodies’ respective roles. I entirely agree with that, and I know that the minister does too.
As members are aware, there has been much debate about the provision on the defence of ignorance in section 3, in particular the possibility that it all but removes that defence. It was good to hear what the minister said in her opening remarks, which gives us some comfort in that regard. There are situations in which genuine human error occurs, and we must be conscious that the problem could be compounded if there continued to be a lack of clarity on what does or does not constitute an historic monument.
We must not get into a situation in which there is a conflict between legislation and common sense, as Alasdair Allan noted when he provided the example of the proposal to preserve the plastic sheeting over a pane of glass. There is an issue with regard to the production of certain inventories; like any taxonomy, they are open to all kinds of interpretation. That point has been illustrated many times this afternoon, so I will not go back over it.
A related point, which arises in section 11, is the attempt to deal with the responsibility, obligations and costs that fall at the doors of the owners. I urge the Scottish Government to provide assurances that there will be no obfuscation or scope for loopholes in that regard.
The power of entry without owners’ consent when a monument is thought to be at risk raises some issues with regard to the definition of what constitutes imminent damage and destruction. Again, the minister’s comments were helpful in that regard. It is important for that to be crystal clear so that we can allay any fears of unrestricted entry to sites without the permission of owners.
There are some concerns but, as the convener of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee said, they can, with careful handling, be addressed without hindering the better management of our historic sites. Apart from some wrangles over definitions, liability for care and the structure of appropriate inventories, there is widespread consensus on the merits of the bill. On that basis, I repeat that the Scottish Conservatives are happy to support its main principles.
16:43
It is clear from this debate that we need a legal framework and extended powers and duties for those who are responsible for protecting our historic environment. That combination will allow our country to preserve and protect historic sites, buildings and monuments.
Ted Brocklebank called for stronger action. I am glad that Elizabeth Smith clarified what he meant when he talked about streamlining. I got the impression that it was akin to a merger. I do not have any difficulty with what he actually said, and I support Robin Harper’s view of George Reid’s report.
I am in favour of having more than one body to undertake responsibility for all these matters; it would be bad for us to consider a merger.
For absolute clarification, the record will show that I said I agree with George Reid that the two bodies should continue, but that their functions should perhaps be streamlined in some areas.
That is clearer now and I am grateful to Ted Brocklebank for making that point.
Margaret Smith made an excellent point about the number of volunteers, without whom we would have no chance of doing the work that we do in this area. She talked about ancient civilisations that we know about only because of the evidence we uncover. She also made the point that just because a building or monument is not listed or scheduled, that does not mean that it is not important.
Bill Wilson reminded us not to forget the breadth of the subject. Interestingly, he suggested that ancient penalties might go along with ancient monuments. Who says that the SNP is soft on crime? Well, it is not today.
Claire Baker made an excellent point about our children’s imagination, arguing that preserving the past for their future is an important part of our work. Liam McArthur trailed his possible pending appearance on television, depending on the edit, and highlighted the Lonely Planet guide and the amazing attractions on Orkney, which I am sure will do wonders for tourism there. Aileen Campbell talked about the practical issues for those who use buildings that are listed or in conservation areas.
Ken Macintosh, who is a member of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, talked about the weaknesses in the bill. There has to be a continuing debate on the points that were raised in his exchange with the minister about whether the duty on Government departments is a wider duty on public bodies and what it consists of. That is clearly an issue for stage 2.
Alasdair Allan said that it perhaps needs to be explained that Scotland’s collection did not come about by accident and that it exists because of policies and legislation. Most developing countries have similar policies for the same reasons. Having travelled a bit, my view is that the United States is probably the best that I have seen; it turns just about everything into a national park and something of a tourist attraction. Perhaps we can learn lessons from that.
The prize for the person who did not mince his words goes to Dr Ian McKee for an interesting critique of Edinburgh’s built environment. He talked about crimes against the historic environment and about parts of the city that offend him. The Park Circus area of my constituency is of outstanding conservation interest, and everyone is mystified about how the building that was formerly occupied by the Bank of Scotland got there. We clearly did not do everything right in the past.
Conservation has not been addressed very much this afternoon. Will the minister say some more about why there is not much about conservation in the bill? Perhaps it is not something that fits, but I want to talk about it for a few moments because it is also an important part of our heritage. If planning authorities, which have an interest in development, had unfettered powers and we did not have a strong Historic Scotland or a set of environmental bodies with powers in the area, we would see many more disastrous planning decisions. Perhaps the minister will elaborate on that.
As for enforcement in relation to listed buildings, I support the range of penalties in the bill, including fixed penalty notices, but I want to mention an issue that I have raised with Historic Scotland. In the west of Glasgow, where there are listed buildings and areas of conservation, we have people who have lived in buildings all their lives who cannot afford to replace their windows. There are already strong enforcement powers that local authorities use to get people to reverse any modernisation of windows. The answer lies in a bit more public information—some exists—about how people can affordably upgrade their buildings and preserve heritage at the same time.
I said in my opening speech that section 18 is the area in which the most work needs to be done. The power it provides needs to be clarified. The existing procedure seems to be informal, but the new procedure seems to be a more formal one under which any person can apply. Having listened to the debate, I think that ministers have got it right in making it possible for a wider group of people to apply. It is clear that any local community could have an interest and I would not want that to be excluded by any restriction in section 18.
I also wonder whether the two processes—one formal, the other informal—will be conflated in time, as they are essentially looking at the same thing. I seek some clarification in that respect. Finally, is there any timescale for considering certificates of immunity? What criteria will ministers use? I presume that, during this particular time period, Historic Scotland will assess whether a building should be listed.
We have had a good and interesting debate. As we will not revisit the subject in a hurry, we had better get it right while we have the chance and I look forward to stages 2 and 3.
I call Fiona Hyslop to wind up the debate. If the minister could sit down just before 5 o’clock to allow a business motion to be moved, I would be grateful.
16:50
I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to debate the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill today and thank the members who have spoken in a thoughtful and constructive debate. There have been some very good, informed and knowledgeable speeches. I highlight Ian McKee’s thoughtful speech and reassure him that under the Scottish heritage environment policy the default position for listing is that the building remains in active use. I think that that is an important element in setting out some of the wider context to this issue.
Members have shown a lot of passion about the contribution that heritage can make to Scotland and its value as a key driver of tourism. The perspectives that we have heard from Renfrewshire, Orkney, Cramond and the Glasgow west end are important in putting in context our reasons for introducing a bill that will help to shore up and support the existing legislation.
A number of interesting issues have been raised in today’s debate, not least of which is Bill Wilson’s inventive suggestion that those who damage buildings should be punished according to the century in which the building on which the offence is perpetrated was built. Indeed, Historic Scotland might be able raise some revenue by charging people to see those punishments being exacted. [Laughter.] I am not quite sure who my champion would be, but Ted Brocklebank might well step forward if required. I will continue to listen to any constructive arguments on this matter, but I stress again that two of the bill’s underlying aims are to avoid placing any new burdens or duties on the public sector, private sector or individuals and to ensure that, in the current economic climate, implementation costs are kept low.
On our proposal to extend the range of historic environment assets that can be scheduled, the committee expressed an expectation that the Scottish Government will act rigorously and have regard to strict criteria in considering possible sites for designation. I can confirm in response that existing legislation sets out that ministers may schedule only sites of “national importance” and the criteria used to determine that are set out in the Scottish historic environment policy.
During its consideration of the bill, the Education Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee received representations against the proposal that any person should be able to apply for a certificate of immunity from listing and I acknowledged those concerns at my appearance before it on 29 September. I thank the committee for considering the arguments for and against limiting the scope of those who may apply for a certificate and note that it is not persuaded that the proposal for applications for a certificate against listing should be restricted to owners and occupiers. Margaret Smith and Claire Baker explained the issues very clearly indeed. The committee recommended that the Scottish Government provide further information on the certificate of immunity application process to give greater assurance to stakeholders. Pauline McNeill also made a specific request in that respect, and I can confirm that I am committed to issuing further information to the committee on the point that she has raised.
I will write to the committee about its recommendation that the Scottish Government give further consideration to the availability of expertise to interpret information on the historic environment. I think that that should address the first of the two issues that Ken Macintosh raised. Finally, I confirm that the Scottish ministers agree with the committee that issues related to the inclusion of ecclesiastical buildings in the listed building consent process should not be covered in this bill.
Bill Wilson asked about the £50,000 limit for fines. The current limit is £10,000; the £50,000 limit is in line with current environmental fines and is the maximum amount for a summary conviction. Fines for convictions on indictment are unlimited, and the gravity of the offence will be a factor in deciding the procedure.
Ted Brocklebank made a number of points about battlefields. He said that the bill offers no test to determine whether a battlefield should be included in the statutory inventory. The test will be whether a site is of national importance, as defined by the criteria that I have outlined. He also raised concerns about agricultural works. I will explain to him in writing why a class order and exemption will be allowed for lawful disturbance of agricultural land by ploughing for six or 10 years.
Ken Macintosh was right to explore the issues that the BEFS raised. I appreciate the advice that the BEFS has given us. The policy aim of what it proposes is important; at issue is how we get that effect. The member referred to the duty of care that Government departments already have, but that relates only to estates, buildings and assets. The general duty to protect the historic environment that the BEFS proposes relates to all public bodies when they are carrying out their functions. Regardless of whether the distinction is semantic, as has been suggested, or legal, the issue is worth exploring, so that we can address some of the concerns that have been raised.
Ken Macintosh suggested that the duty might be similar to the duty that the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 imposes. It is not, as that duty is narrowly focused on clearly defined issues relating to the Scottish marine area and, unlike the duty proposed by the BEFS, is limited to the functions for which the act provides. The duty that the BEFS proposes is also not similar to the duty to ensure biodiversity under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. However, it is important that the member has drawn out those issues, which I am happy to explore.
I cannot cover all the points that members have made. Iain Smith referred to the listing of the school buildings on Kilrymont Road. Ted Brocklebank has raised that point with officials. I reassure them both that Historic Scotland has no recent case history on the issue, but it will contact the site owners and the local authority to explore whether some of the issues of concern can be resolved.
Pauline McNeill expressed concern about why conservation is not part of the debate. Conservation is controlled by planning and development law, but the member is right to say that we must be consistent in how we address both issues. In the bill, we are bringing some symmetry to the application of historical environment legislation and planning legislation. The member makes an important point.
I hope that I have addressed some of the key issues that members have raised. As many members have said, it is important that we recognise that the Government—Historic Scotland is a Government agency—is not the only body that is responsible for and has interests in the historic environment—[Interruption.]
Order. The level of noise is getting too high. Please keep it down.
Margaret Smith and others referred to the number of volunteers who look after and support local scheduled monuments and other properties. The private owners who are responsible for many of our buildings must be commended for the work that they do.
I thank all of those who have contributed to this thoughtful and thorough debate on the general principles of the bill. People may not have thought that the bill would generate one of the most interesting debates in the Parliament, but the contributions of Alasdair Allan, Ian McKee and others have shown otherwise. Liam McArthur referred to the Westray wife and the tourism boom that is taking place in Orkney. It is important to recognise that the historic environment is not dry or dull—it evokes a great deal of passion from members, contributes to the economy and provides skills. Ian McKee referred to the provision of double glazing in Edinburgh and the new skills that are needed to ensure that existing buildings can tackle climate change issues.
We should celebrate our rich historic environment. The bill will support many of our other objectives, especially in relation to climate change, and provide regulatory authorities with a much-improved toolkit to help them manage and protect Scotland’s historic environment, for the enjoyment and benefit of current and future generations. I ask members to support the motion and to approve the general principles of the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.